Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9405ltrs.asp

The many fine points made by Fr. Nicholas Halligan in his article, "To Be or Not to Be a Sacrament" [January 1994] should not be allowed to obscure the genuine issues he either eludes or avoids altogether.

"The Church did not institute the sacraments . . . she has not the arbitrary disposition of them. The Church merely administers them on behalf of Jesus Christ." True. But the real issue is whether the content of what is being administered has been altered. If the Church "has not the arbitrary disposition" of the sacraments, neither does the pope. And yet what else was the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI?

Fr. Halligan seems to think the New Mass did nothing but make the public prayer of the Church "more understandable and thus more spiritually fruitful." But the question in dispute is precisely whether it teaches the same doctrine as the traditional Latin Mass. (The term "Tridentine" Mass is a polemical misnomer. The traditional Latin Mass predates Trent by a thousand years and more. It is incontestably the oldest rite of Mass in Christendom, as scholars of all religious backgrounds agree.)

The point is not whether the New Mass is understandable, but what it gives an understanding of; not whether it is fruitful, but whether its fruits are authentically Catholic. It is not principally a matter of the language of offering, but of the doctrine offered. The Maronite, Byzantine, Mozarabic and traditional Latin liturgies all express and enact the same truths. But does the New Mass?

If you compare the text of the traditional Latin Mass to that of the Novus Ordo, it is not hard to conclude that the latter is a "break with tradition," and a "striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass." Those phrases come from an evaluation of the New Mass done 25 years ago by 40 Roman theologians under the aegis of the emeritus-head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Their charges were summarily dismissed (often in cheap personal attacks); their theological objections were never answered.

Many of these theological problems require no great acumen to see. Among the most blatant are: changing the consecration (which requires a sacrificial and sacramental act) to a narrative of institution (which requires no such thing), and altering Our Lord's words about his blood being shed "for you and for many" to "for you and for all." Few things in logic or common sense are clearer than the fact that the words "many" and "all" do not mean the same thing.

The reason for this mistranslation or subterfuge? To make the New Mass correspond to fashionable theological speculation about the ultimate salvation of all. Our Lord was speaking of the effects of his sacrifice and indicating some would refuse them, a doctrine considered punishing, judgmental, and definitely not nice. Accordingly, the revisers would have us believe he was referring to the motivation for his act, and, since the text is against them, they change it. Apparently they know what the Lord meant better than he did.

At this point, one might well cite the very canon Fr. Halligan quotes, Denzinger 2101, against him: If it is "never permissible to follow a probable opinion or course of action with regard to the validity of any sacrament, especially the Eucharist, when a safer opinion or procedure is available which insures the validity," then these changes, which at the very least cause doubt, should lead us to prefer the traditional Latin Mass, about the validity of which there is no doubt whatever.

Nor can the New Mass plausibly claim to be a revision of the traditional Latin rite, unless one is so loose in one's terminology as also to consider a stick figure a "revision" of the Venus de Milo. Again, compare the text of the traditional Roman Canon to the New Mass's First Eucharistic Prayer. The latter is manifestly not a translation, even a grossly incompetent translation, of the former; nor can it be a revised equivalent: The two differ in theological content far too widely for that to be plausible. Rather it seems that Msgr. Klaus Gamber is correct: The New Mass is not a revision but a new creation. Again we come back to the question of fact. Is it an orthodox or a heterodox rite and how is one to tell?--questions which Fr. Halligan needs straightforwardly to discuss, not assume what he is obliged to prove.

Further, Fr. Halligan's bland assurances that the Church makes available the traditional Mass to those wish it are belied by the shabby, even grotesque campaign of the vast majority of American bishops to stymie such efforts and vilify those who make them, even though they be in accord with John Paul II's stated wish that the traditional Mass be accessible "widely and generously."

Similar problems arise in the article's presentation of marriage. The psychological impediments to sacramental marriage listed in the article are so broad, murky, and subjective that no marriage could escape being nullified at any time by a party who wants out, the process speeded by diocesan marriage tribunals which issue [annulments] like ecclesiastical Pez dispensers.

When annulments go from a few hundred in 1968 (years after the Vatican Council, be it noted) to some 48,000 in 1988, one is left with the impression that either vast numbers of adult human beings have, uniquely in our history, suddenly become hopeless moral imbeciles incapable of giving valid consent or that a new, heterodox doctrine of marriage is now being taught. Fr. Halligan does little to dispel that conclusion.

The new rules turn those who, from religious obedience, made truly heroic sacrifices to honor their vows to difficult or invalid spouses into deluded fools who wasted their lives and missed their chance for self-fulfillment, for most likely their decades-long liaison was no true marriage at all. The modern history of the word "annulment" could only be written by Humpty-Dumpty, who made words mean whatever he wanted them to mean at the moment.

The question on your magazine's [cover], "Are the sacraments you receive valid?", remains unanswered. If the indispensable minimum for a "yes" remains proper matter, form, and intention to do what the Church has ever done and taught, then my difficulties, nay anguish, intensify, for what I see around me looks very like the abandonment or perversion of the Catholic faith.

Fr. Halligan quotes Paul VI: "Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending ecclesial sense." I submit that being affronted by people's bad manners, which is all that statement boils down to, is far less than the uncompromising defense of true Catholic doctrine required of holders of the Petrine office.

Finally, I should note that I am not connected with any schismatic organization, nor am I even a member of a traditionalist parish. I'm just a disheartened layman at long last fed up with the nonsense, distortions, half-truths, and outright lies dished up by various ecclesiastical authorities for the past 25 years in a vain effort to prove that "X" is the same as "not X."

P. M. Aliazzi
Cleveland, Ohio

Editor's reply:

1. Although major elements of it come down to us from the earliest centuries, the Tridentine rite is not in its entirety the oldest rite of Mass in Christendom." The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, for example, which is used in Eastern rites, is older.

2. The consecration was not changed to a mere "narrative of institution (which requires no [sacrifice])." If that had happened, the Novus Ordo would contain no sacrifice at all--an untenable proposition.

3. The dispute about translating pro multis as "for all" or "for many," while interesting liturgically and linguistically, has nothing to do with the validity of the Mass, and Fr. Halligan was writing about validity.

4. He was not writing about which rite, old or the new, is the preferable for doctrinal instruction, spirituality, or aesthetics. He was discussing what it takes for the Mass, in any rite, to be valid, and he should not be faulted for not discussing something outside the scope of his article.

5. The vast expansion in the number of annulments--most of them in the United States--leaves one with questions, I grant you that, but I don't think one is forced into the either/or dilemma that you propose.

My comments on their comments:
1. "The Gregorian Rite is the oldest liturgy of the undivided Church still in use. It was written before the time of Pope Damasus (late fourth century), who is referred to in ancient texts as having made modifications to it. Some believe it originated with St. Peter, when he came to Rome from Antioch, and St. Paul may well also have used it when he came to Rome. The rite did not acquire its present name until the time of St. Gregory the Great in the late Sixth Century."

"Our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God."

2. Bishop Castro de Meyer also argued that the New Mass is presented more as a narrative than a sacrifice, diminishing faith in "the reality of the propitiatory sacrifice". He wrote to Pope Paul VI:

The essence of the sacrifice of the Mass lies in repeating what Jesus did at the last Supper, and this not as a simple recitation, but accompanied by the gestures. Thus, as the moral theologians have said, it is not enough to simply say again historically what Jesus did. The words of consecration must be pronounced with the intention of repeating what Jesus accomplished, for when the priest celebrates, he represents Jesus Christ, and acts "in persona Christi. In the new "Ordo" there is no such precise statement, although it is essential. To the contrary, in the passage that speaks of the narrative part, nothing is said of the properly sacrificial part. Thus, when it explains the Eucharistic Prayer, it speaks of the "narratio institutionis" (No. 54d) in such a way that the expressions: "Ecclesia memoriam ipsius Christi agit" ["the Church commemorates the memory of Christ himself"] and another at the end of the consecration: "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem" ["Do this in memory of me"] have the meaning indicated by the explanation given in the preceding general norms (No. 54d). We remark that the final phrase of the (traditional) consecration "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis" [As often as you do this, do it in memory of me] was much more expressive of the reality that in the Mass, it is the action of Jesus Christ which is repeated.

Furthermore, placing other expressions in the midst of the essential words of consecration, namely "Accipite et manducate omnes" [Take and eat all of you] and "Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes," [Take and drink from it all of you] introduces the narrative part into the same sacrificial act. Whereas in the Tridentine Mass the text and movements guide the priest naturally to accomplish the propitiatory sacrificial action and almost impose this intention on the priest who celebrates. In this way the "lex supplicanda" [the manner of praying] is perfectly in conformity with the "lex credendi." [the rule of our Faith] We cannot say this for the New Ordo Missae. However, the New Ordo Missae ought to make it easier for the celebrant to have the intention necessary to accomplish validly and worthily the act of the Holy Sacrifice, especially given the importance of this action, not mentioning the instability of modern times, nor even the psychological conditions of the younger generations.

3. The consecration "has nothing to do with the validity of the Mass"?!! Fellowship and preaching and hearing the gospel proclaimed are all very good things, but none of them are are the essence of the Mass. It is the coming of the good shepherd to feed and heal the souls of His flock with His very body and blood that is the essence of the Mass. Even if every other element of the Mass were perfect, without the consecration we would have no Mass at all! Certainly, we should take care to get the consecration right. It has everything to do with the validity of the Mass.